Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
~_AD
PUBLIC INFORM,'Tt()N OFFICE
EN BANC
- versus -
X------------------------- X
- versus -
--
DECISION 2 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
BUREAU-REGION III (EMB-
REGION HI), THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT BUREAU-REGION
IV ("EMB-REGION IV-A), and THE
POLLUTION ADJUDICATION
BOARD (PAB),
Respondents.
X - - - - ·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
BERSAMIN, C.J.,
CARPIO,
PERALTA,*
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
JARDELEZA, *
- versus - CAGUIOA,
REYES, A. JR.,*
GESMUNDO,
REYES, J. JR.,**
HERNANDO,
CARANDANG,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INTING, JJ.
THE POLLUTION ADJUDICATION
BOARD And ENVIRONMENTAL Promulgated:
MANAGEMENT BUREAU,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------
DECISION
HERNANDO, J.:
Water is not a mere commodity for sale and consumption but a natural
asset to be protected and conserved. Sanitation is its corollary constant, as a
poor state of sewerage systems is one of the pillars of people's miseries. We
* No part.
** On leave.
-V\
DECISION 3 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
It cannot be gainsaid that the role of water spans from the nuclear to the
astronomical. Yet this "giver of life" is threatened by various adversities.
Local incidents of water scarcity are fast becoming normal occurrences
because of extended El Nifio conditions resulting from climate change. Our
sewerage systems are antiquated, if not defunct or nonexistent, and far too
neglected - the fact that urban informal settlers by the creeks use the same as
their bathrooms and trash bins has reached the status of common knowledge.
That water has become an ironically expensive resource is ever more apparent,
and unstable access to potable water is afflicting more and more areas over
time. While their importance is all too obvious, the state of the Philippines'
water supply and water sanitation appear hopelessly grim.
The principal duty of the State and the water industry to supply drinking
water and provide top-notch wastewater services through provisions of
sewage and septage treatments to households and businesses needs no further
emphasis. People have perpetually guarded themselves against water
contamination and have evolved from conveying raw waste to natural bodies
of water to devising complex sewerage systems. In more ways than one, water
and water quality has been a strategic resource which can cause considerable
health, sanitation, and biodiversity impacts. Its sociological effects also
proliferate in the cultural and economic lives of each individual.
Fifteen years from the effectivity of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9275, or
the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 (Clean Water Act), 5 allegations that
certain entities demonstrated and are continuing to demonstrate blatant apathy
1
Klass, Alexandra and Ling-Yee Huang, Restoring the Trust: Water Resources and the Public Trust
Doctrine, A Manual for Advocates, Center for Progressive Reform (September 2009), 2.
2
Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan, Chemistry ofthe Elements, Butterworth-Heinemann (2 nd edition,
1997), p. 601.
3
Id. at 620.
4
Klass, Alexandra, Modern Public Trust Principles: Recognizing Rights and Integrating Standards, Notre
Dame Law Review 82:2, 706.
5
Republic Act No. 9275, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on March 22, 2004.
-t,1
DECISION 4 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
with their obligations thereunder now surface and clamor for resolution. As
this unfortunately coincides with Metropolitan Manila's ongoing water supply
crisis, the Court, in this case, must declare with dispatch and in no uncertain
terms the complete, categorical, and definitive implementation of this vital
piece of legislation revolving around the natural resource that is water. We
have never shirked from the duty such as this and we do not begin now.
THE CASE
THE FACTS
-\
DECISION 5 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
DENR's mandate to implement the operational plan for the rehabilitation and
restoration of Manila Bay and its river tributaries. 11
On April 8 and 21, 2009, the Regional Directors of the DENR EMB-
National Capital Region (NCR) and Region VI-A (RVI-A) also instituted their
complaints before the P AB. They similarly charged MWSS, Maynilad, and
Manila Water with failure to (a) provide, install, or maintain sufficient
WWTFs compliant with the standards and objectives of the Clean Water Act;
(b) construct Sewage Treatment Plants and Sewerage Treatment Facilities
(STPs & STFs) for treatment of household wastes; and, ultimately, (c)
perform its obligations under the said law. According to the EMB-NCR and
EMB-RVI-A, the test results of water samples taken from Manila Bay showed
that the quality of water near the area has worsened without improvement in
all parameters.
_.{)
DECISION 6 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
In his deliberation of the complaints, the SENR ruled that the Clean
Water Act, specifically, the provisions on the five-year period to connect the
existing sewage lines, is mandatory, and the refusal of petitioners' customers
to connect to a sewage line is irrelevant to Section 8 of the law. The SENR
further stated that petitioners' failure to provide a centralized sewerage system
and connect all sewage lines is a continuing unmitigated environmental
pollution resulting in the release and discharge of untreated water into various
water areas and Manila Bay. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority (MMDA) v. Concerned Residents of Manila
Bay, 17 strict compliance with the Clean Water Act is a necessary given, and
the five-year periodic review stipulated in the Agreements between petitioners
should have considered and factored in the requirements of the Clean Water
Act. 18
-'\
DECISION 7 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
[Petitioners] are hereby directed to pay the fines within ten (10) days
from receipt hereof.
Petitioners filed separate petitions for review under Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court before the Court of Appeals questioning these Orders of the SENR.
19
Id. at 151-152.
20
Id. at 156.
21
Id. at 173-182.
22
Id. at 221-222.
~
DECISION 8 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
The court a quo did not consolidate the petitions and ruled the same
separately.
-l\
DECISION 9 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
to sewerage systems .ready for and already in use within five years from
effectivity of the law. It held that the compliance period under the Clean Water
Act is separate from the compliance periods provided in the Agreement
between MWSS and Manila Water. In the same vein, it also ruled that the
DPWH need not first formulate a National Sewerage and Septage
Management Program (NSSMP) before Manila Water can be compelled to
comply with Section 8 of the Clean Water Act. The Court of Appeals stated
that "Section 8, R.A. No. 9275 categorically states that the petitioner shall
connect existing sewage lines to available sewerage system in its service area
'[w]ithin five (5) years following the effectivity of this Act,' and not within 5
years from the formulation of the NSSMP or within 5 years from the
preparation of the compliance plan for mandatory connection by the DPWH."
The dispbsitive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision30 dated August 14,
2012 disposed of Manila Water's petition as follows:
30
Rollo (G.R. No. 206823), pp. 110-121; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Presiding
Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Rodi! V. Zalameda (now a
member of this Court) concurring.
31
Id. at 120-121.
32
Id. at 123-125.
33
Rollo (G.R. No. 207969), pp. 33-53; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon with Associate
Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring.
DECISION 10 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
MWSS 's motion for reconsideration was also denied in the Court of
Appeals Resolution35 dated June 17, 2013.
MWSS' Arguments
MWSS insists it did not violate the law. It argues, in essence, that its
obligation under Section 8 of the Clean Water Act has yet to accrue given the
lack of required coordination and cooperation by the lead and implementing
agencies under Section 7 of the law and non-compliance by the DPWH,
DENR and LGUs with Sections 7 of the Clean Water Act, specifically the
preparation and establishment of a national program on sewerage and septage
management. 36
The MWSS shall submit to the Court on or before June 30, 2011 the
list of areas in Metro Manila, Rizal and Cavite that do not have the necessary
wastewater treatment facilities. Within the same period, the
concessionaires of the MWSS shall submit their plans and projects for the
constrnction of wastewater treatment facilities in all the aforesaid areas and
the completion period for said facilities, which shall not go beyond 2037. 38
On the other hand, Manila Water maintains that it was deprived of due
process of law when the DENR Secretary imposed a fine without a valid
complaint or charge, and that the Orders dated October 7 and December 2,
2009 were issued without or in excess of jurisdiction since the SENR
arrogated the full powers of the PAB, imposing a fine without the requisite
recommendation from the latter. Manila Water is steadfast in its position that
it did not violate Section 8 of the Clean Water Act, as Section 7, in relation to
34
Id. at 52.
35
Id. at 55-57.
36
Id. at 14-17.
37
658 Phil. 223 (2011 ).
38
Id. at 240.
-\
DECISION 11 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
Albeit with much difficulty, the government agencies, except for the
lead agency under the Clean Water Act, the DENR, as well as herein
petitioners, have complied with the April 4, 2017 Resolution of this Court. We
note that one of the government agencies we required to comply, the National
Sewerage and Septage Management Program (Office NSSMPO), as per the
DPWH' s Compliance, has yet to be organized as an office thereunder. We
shall discuss the contents of all these Compliances in the course of our
disposition in this case.
39
Rollo (G.R. No. 206823), pp. 44-47.
40
It appear[s] that these consolidated petitions hinge on the central issue of whether or not petitioners
[Maynilad] and [Manila Water] complied with the provisions of Section 8, Republic Act No. 9275, xx x and
considering that the said law also imposes specific obligations on certain government agencies, in order for
the Court to comprehensively address the merits of the case[.] (Rollo [G.R. No. 207969], pp. 242-245.)
,...--I
DECISION 12 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
In G.R. No. 202897, Maynilad and Manila Water impleaded the DENR
Secretary, the Regional Directors for NCR, Region III, and Region IV-A of
the DENR-EMB, and the PAB. MWSS, on the other hand, impleads as
respondents the PAB and the Regional Offices, NCR, III, and IV-A of the
DENR-EMB.
Further. May 7, 2009 is the date following the lapse of five (5) years
from the time the Clean Water Act took effect on May 6, 2004, per Rule 1.2
of the DENR Administrative Order No. 2005-10 (DAO No. 2005-10) or the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Clean Water Act, which states:
E,;fectivity of the CWA. The CWA was published on April 21, 2004
and subsequently took effect on May 6, 2004.
1. The rationale for the enactment of Clean Water Act and its
prov1s10ns.
-"
DECISION 13 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
Maynilad and Manila Water, under the Clean Water Act, the
Agreements, and the subsequent extension thereof.
ISSUES
For this Court's resolution are the procedural and substantive issues, to
wit:
I. Procedural
II. Substantive
43
Supra note 17.
-t
DECISION 14 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
I.
Procedural Issues
The PAB has the ex.elusive and original jurisdiction with respect
to adjudication of pollution cases based on exceedance of the DENR
Effluent Standards and other acts defined as prohibited under Section 27
of R.A. 9275. 46
44
See Section 19 of Executive Order No. 192.
Section 19. Pollution Adjudication Board. There is hereby created a Pollution Adjudication Board under the Office
of the Secretary. The Board shall be composed of the Secretary as Chairman, two (2) Undersecretaries as may be
designated by the Secretary, the Director of Environmental Management, and three (3) others to be designated by the
Secretary as members. The Board shall assume the powers and functions of the Commission/Commissioners of the
National Pollution Control Commission with respect to the adjudication of pollution cases under Republic Act 3931 and
Presidential Decree 984, particularly with respect to Section 6 letters e, f, g, j, k and p of P.D. 984. The Environmental
Management Bureau shall serve as the Secretariat of the Board. These powers and functions may be delegated to the
regional officers of the Department in accordance with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Board.
45
Section l(A), Rule Ill of PAB Resolution No. 001-10.
46
Rule Ill ofPAB Resolution No. 001-10
SECTION I . .Jurisdiction of the Board. -
xxxx
13. Specific Jurisdiction Notwithstanding the general jurisdiction of
the Board over adjudication of pollution cases. and all matters related thereto, the Board has specific jurisdiction,
over the following cases:
xxxx
2. Clean Water /\ct (R.A. 9275).
4
DECISION 15 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
However, the Orders of the SENR are different from the issuances
of the PAB. While under its 1997 rules, the PAB hadjurisdiction to impose
the fine or administrative sanction on all cases of pollution, it is Section 28 48
of the Clean Water Act and its IRR, Rule 28 of DAO No. 2005-10, which
must be correctly applied. It was already in effect in 2009 and specifically
bestows upon the Secretary of the DENR, upon recommendation of the
PAB, in cases of commission of prohibited acts under and violations of
the Clean Water Act, the power to impose fines, order the closure,
suspension of development or construction, or cessation of operations,
or, where appropriate disconnection of water supply.
47
Revised Rules of the Pollution Adjudication Board on Pleading, Practice and Procedure in Pollution Cases
and subsequently superseded by PAB Resolution No. 01-10 promulgated on June 29, 2010.
48
SECTION 28. Fines, Damages and Penalties. - Unless otherwise provided herein, any person who commits any of
the prohibited acts provided in the immediately preceding section or violates any of the provisions of this Act or
its implementing rules and regulations, shall be fined by the Secretary, upon the recommendation of the PAB in the
amount ofnot less than Ten thousand pesos (Pl0,000.00) nor more than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) for
every day of violation. The fines herein prescribed shall be increased by ten percent (10%) every two (2) years to
compensate for inflation and to maintain the deterrent function of such fines: Provided, That the Secretary, upon
recommendation of the PAB may order the closure, suspension of development or construction, or cessation of operations
or, where appropriate disconnection of water supply, until such time that proper environmental safeguards are put in
place and/or compliance with this Act or its rules and regulations are undertaken. This paragraph shall be without
prejudice to the issuance of an ex parte order for such closure, suspension of development or construction, or cessation
of operations during the pendency of the case.
xxxx
Provided,jinally, That water pollution cases involving acts or omissions committed within the Laguna Lake Region
shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure under Republic Act No. 4850 as amended.
49
Administrative Order No. 18, Series of 1987, repealed by Administrative Order No. 22, Series of 2011
(Rollo [G.R No. 207969], p. 14.)
..,J
DECISION 16 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
In invoking their right to due process, petitioners mainly argue that the
SENR, without a valid complaint or charge, imposed a fine without the
recommendation from the PAB and arrogated unto itself the powers of the
latter.
We disagree.
The records disclose the fact that this case was spawned by the
complaints commenced by the Regional Directors of the DENR-EMB-RIII,
DENR-EMB-NCR, and DENR-EMB-RVI-A before the DENR-P AB. The
SENR acted upon the said complaints in response, issuing the NOV against
petitioners which explicitly stated:
Notice of Violation
Sir:
Notice is hereby served upon you that the Manila Water Sewerage System
(MWSS) has committed violations as found during the periodic monitorings
conducted by this Office from January to March 2009.
50
Ejera v. Merto, 725 Phil. 180 (2014); Universal Robina Corp. (Corn Div.) v. Laguna Lake Dev 't Authority,
664 Phil. 754 (2011).
51
Alliance.for the Family Foundation, Philippines, Inc. v. Garin, G.R. Nos. 217872 and 221866, April 26,
2017, 825 SCRA 191, 212-213.
_,,,(I,
DECISION 17 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
2. Sec. 8 of RA 9275 states that "[w]ithin five (5) years following the
effectivity of this Act, the agency vested to provide water supply and
sewerage facilities and/or concessionaires in Metro Manila and other highly
urbanized cities (HUCs) as defined in Republic Act No. 7160, in
coordination with LGU s, shall be required to connect the existing sewage
line found in all subdivisions, condominiums, commercial centers, hotels,
sports and recreational facilities, hospitals, market places, public buildings,
industrial complex and other similar establishments including households to
available sewerage system."
In clear terms, the NOV stated the charges against petitioners, gave a
directive to attend the technical conference for simplification of issues and
stipulations of facts, and apprised them of the liability imposed on violators
under Section 28 of the Clean Water Act. Hence, petitioners were notified
of the charges against them, were given an opportunity to be heard during
a technical conference, 53 and were informed of the penalty for possible
violations of the Clean Water Act. These charges were the same accusations
for which petitioners were eventually found liable for. In addition, petitioners
wrote several letters addressed to the P AB and the Secretary of the DENR
formalizing their position in response to the Complaint-Affidavits of the
Regional Directors of the DENR-EMB. In tum, the Regional Directors filed
their Comments thereto, which were amply refuted by the petitioners.
Demonstrably, the SENR, upon recommendation of the PAB, pursuant to the
Clean Water Act, validly imposed the fine after the charge, hearing, and due
deliberation.
Moreover, the role ofth~ PAB under Section 28 of the Clean Water Act
is merely recommendatory. The pertinent portion of Section 28 of the said law
provides:
.,-f
DECISION 18 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
Pursuant to specific laws, the Board shall exercise, but not be limited
to, the following powers:
xxxx
8.3 Under Section 28 of R.A. 9275, Clean Water Act of 2004, the Board
shall:
During the deliberation of the case, the Board took note of the
following findings, to wit:
4
' PAB Resolution No. 01-2010.
-"
DECISION 19 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
xxxx
~
DECISION 20 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
55
Rollo (G.R. No. 206823), pp. 141-143).
..(i
DECISION 21 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
In any case, whatever procedural lapse that may have transpired during
the proceedings before the P AB and the SENR had already been cured when
MWSS, Maynilad, and Manila Water all moved for reconsideration of the
SENR's Orders. 57 Procedural due process, as applied to administrative
proceedings, means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or
an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of.ss
All said, the petitions on hand already merit their outright dismissals on
technical score alone.
II.
Substantive issues
56
Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), 721 Phil. 34, 39 (2013), citing
Ledesma v. Court ofAppeals, 565 Phil. 731, 740 (2007).
57
Republic v. Dela Merced & Sons, Inc., G.R. Nos. 201501 & 201658, January 22, 2018.
ss Id.
-
DECISION 22 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
Protruding from the basic tenet that water is a vital part of human
existence, this Court introduces the Public Trust Doctrine. It aims to put an
additional strain upon the duty of the water industry to comply with the laws
and regulations of the land.
The vastness of this patrimony precludes the State from managing the
same entirely by itself. In the interest of quality and efficiency, it thus
outsources assistance from private entities, but this must be delimited and
controlled for the protection of the general welfare. Then comes into relevance
police power, one of the inherent powers of the State. Police power is
described in Gerochi v. Department ofEnergy61 :
---fl1
DECISION 23 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
The Public Trust Doctrine, while derived from English common law
and American jurisprudence, has firm Constitutional and statutory moorings
in our jurisdiction. The doctrine speaks of an imposed duty upon the State and
its representative of continuing supervision over the taking and use of
appropriated water. 64 Thus, "[p]arties who acquired rights in trust property
[only hold] these rights subject to the trust and, therefore, could assert no
vested right to use those rights in a manner harmful to the trust." 65 In National
Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 66 a California Supreme
Court decision, it worded the doctrine as that which -
[T]he state had the power to reconsider past allocation decisions even
thqugh an agency had made those decisions after due consideration of their
effect on the public trust. This conclusion reflected the view that water users
62
"Not his own master." A term applied to an individual who lacks the legal capacity to act on his or her
behalf, such as an infant or an insane person. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008).
Retrieved July 31, 2019 from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com!Non+Sui+Juris
63
67A C.J.S. Parent and Child§ 11, p. 159.
64
National Audubon Society v .. Superior Court qfAlpine County, 33 Cal. 3d 419, 658 P.2d 709, 189 Cal.Rptr.
346, as cited in Ausness, Richard, Water Rights, the Public Trust Doctrine, and the Protection of Instream
Uses, 1986 U. Ill. L. Rev. 407.
65 Id.
66 Id.
-'
DECISION 24 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
could not acquire a vested property right in the water itself; they merely
obtained a usufrnctuary right to the water.
These exigencies forced the public trust doctrine to evolve from a mere
principle to a resource management term and tool flexible enough to adapt to
changing social priorities and address the correlative and consequent dangers
thereof. The public is regarded as the beneficial owner of trust resources,
and courts can enforce the public trust doctrine even against the
government itself. 70
It is in this same manner that the right to distribute water was granted
by the State via utility franchises to Maynilad and Manila Water, under
express statutory regulation through its delegated representative, the MWSS.
The State conferred the franchise to these concessionaires, working under the
finn belief that they shall serve as protectors of the public interest and the
citizenry. In this regard, water rights must be secured to achieve optimal use
of water resources, 71 its conservation, and its preservation for allocative
efficiency.
67
Klass, Alexandra and Ling-Yee Huang, Restoring the Trust: Water Resources and the I'ublic Trust
Doctrine, A Manual for Advocates, Center for Progressive Reform (September 2009), 1.
68
Id. at 3.
69
Id. at 4. Citing Mono Lake.
70
Id. at 435.
71
Id. at 428.
_r.,
DECISION 25 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
For this purpose, water users who are subject to regulation by the State
or by its own franchise must obtain permits72 and comply with the sanctions
imposed on them. The enjoyment of these permits is not perpetual and require
a continued demonstration of quality and good service. Water allocation
decisions must coincide with a comprehensive water supply plan which
reflects not only economic efficiency but also .environmental and health
values. 73 Henceforth, whenever there are changing needs and circumstances,
there must also be proper re-allocation techniques. 74 "[T]he state can re-
evaluate prior allocations and must act to preserve the right of present and
future generations. " 75 "The idea that the state must manage water resources
for the benefit of present and future generations captures the idea of
sustainability and reflects our extended connection to those who succeed
us."76
Via legislative act of police power, the enactment of the Clean Water
Act thrusts the obligation onto the water concessionaires to provide for a
proper sewerage and septage system that complies with environmental and
health standards to protect present and future generations. The magnitude of
this law is highlighted by the trust relationship among the State,
concessionaires, and water users, which must reflect a universal intangible
agreement that water is an ecological resource that needs to be protected for
the welfare of the citizens. In essence, "[t]he public trust doctrine is based on
the notion that private individuals cannot fully own trust resources but can
only hold them subject to a servitude on behalf of the public." 77 "States can
accomplish this goal more efficiently through statutory regulation" 78 which
was essentially done through the legislation of the Clean Water Act, and the
urgency ·and significance of which is now fortified by the courts under the
Public Trust Doctrine as clamored for by the circumstances of this case.
The Clean Water Act, or "An Act Providing for a Comprehensive Water
Quality Management and For Other Purposes," is a sweeping piece of
legislation consolidating into a coherent whole the fragmented aspects of
quality water management. This purpose is reflected in Section 2(c) thereof,
which formalizes the need to "formulate a holistic national program of water
quality management that recognizes that water quality management issues
cannot be separated from concerns about water sources and ecological
protection, water supply, public health and quality. of life. "
72
Id.
73
Id. at 429.
74 Id.
75
See 58, at 12.
76
Id. at 16.
77
Ausness, Richard, Water Rights, the P11hlic Trust Doctrine, and the Protection oflnstream Uses, 1986 U.
Ill. L. Rev. 407, at 437.
1s Id.
-1
DECISION 26 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
xxxx
~
DECISION 27 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
xxxx
This bill is not lacking in incentives and rewards and it has muscle
to penalize acts that further pollute all our water sources as well. We
increased the fines so that with strict implementation, we can curb the
damage we continue to inflict, ironically, to our life source.
xxxx
The necessity for sewers and sewage, septage, and sewerage facilities
is a matter not up for debate. Sewer, as generally understood in law, has
reference to the underground canal or passage by means of which cities are
drained and the filth or refuse liquids are carried to the sea, river, or other
places or reception, but it has also been applied to an underground structure
80
Record ofthe Senate, Vol. 1, No. 5, August 5, 2002, pp. 116-118.
81
Id., No. 6, lnterpellations re: Senate Bill No. 2115, September 1, 2003, pp. 571-572.
82
Presidential Decree 856.
83
Presidential Decree 198.
84
Republic Act No. 7160 - Environmental Services Section.
85
Republic Act No. 6541.
-'\
DECISION 28 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
for conducting the water of a natural stream. 86 Either way, sewers are
constructed as sanitary measures for the public good. 87 Septage are waste
found in septic tanks, 88 or the sludge produced on individual onsite
wastewater-disposal systems, principally septic tanks and cesspools. 89
Although sewage and sewerage are terms used often interchangeably, there is
a distinction between the two, the word sewerage being usually applied to a
system of sewers, and sewage to the matter carried off. 90 A more graphic
description of sewage under DAO No. 2005-10 triggers the extreme necessity
to contain it - it means water-borne human or animal wastes, excluding oil or
oil wastes, removed from residences, buildings, institutions, industrial and
commercial establishments together with such groundwater, surface water and
storm water as maybe present including such waste from vessels, offshore
structures, other receptacles intended to receive or retain wastes, or other
places or the combination thereof. 91 Sewerage systems and the disposal of
sewage are matters of particular importance to municipalities 92 and local
government units, what with the general health and environmental
significance and hazards they impose.
Bearing in mind that sanitation services are limited and costly "to
construct and operate, septage management is a practical first step for most
utilities and [local government units]. 93 We also consider that there must be
proper design, operation, and maintenance of septic tanks. "In all cases,
municipalities, regulatory officials and service providers shall apply the most
restrictive language in any law, rule, or regulation when interpreting the legal
requirements for sludge and septage management." 94 Subsequently, a
sewerage system must be built to provide for a proper infrastructure that
enables sewage of water using sewers. This infrastructure consists of
receiving drains, manholes, pumps, storm overflows, and screening chambers,
which allows the water to flow out of the environment.
Based on the aforecited legal baselines, the Clean Water Act requires
water utility companies to provide for sewerage and septage management
services within five years of the law's passage. 95 This sewerage or septage
management services requirement is the bone of contention in these cases.
86
80 C.J.S. Shipping§ 80, p. 132.
87 id.
88
Septage. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary ofthe English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011 ). Retrieved
July 31, 2019 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/septage.
89
Sec. 4 (ff), DAO No. 2005-10 or the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Clean Water
Act.
90
80 C.J.S. Shipping§ 80, p. 129.
91
Sec. 4 (gg), DAO No. 2005-10 or the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Clean Water
Act.
92
80 C.J.S. Shipping § 80, p. 130.
91
DOH: Operations Manual on the Rules and Regulations Governing Domestic Sludge and Septage.
94 id.
95 Id.
/4
DECISION 29 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
4
DECISION 30 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
LGUs to provide basic services and facilities, including the delivery of clean
water, 97 and the policy endowing LGUs with local autonomy. 98
Despite the clear wording of the law, petitioners remain insistent that
they did not violate Section 8 of the Clean Water Act and thus should not have
been fined by the SENR. Their arguments are triptych: ( 1) Section 7 of the
Clean Water Act is a condition precedent to petitioners' full compliance to
Section 8 thereof; (2) the Agreements executed by MWSS with the
concessionaires, Maynilad and Manila Water, are controlling in the latter's
performance of their obligations; and (3) petitioners are exempted from
complying with the five-year period in Section 8 because of the ruling in
MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay. 101
Section 7 of the Clean Water Act provides for the National Sewerage and
Septage Management Program -
-t,
DECISION 31 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
Each LGU may raise funds to subsidize necessary expenses for the
operation and maintenance of sewerage treatment or septage facility
servicing their area of jurisdiction through local property taxes and
enforcement of a service fee system.
102
See Executive Order No. 292 (The Administrative Code of 1987), Executive Order No. 192, Republic
Act No. 7160.
~
DECISION 32 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
Each LGU may raise funds to subsidize necessary expenses for the
operation and maintenance of sewerage treatment or septage facility
servicing their area of jurisdiction through local property taxes and
enforcement of a service fee system.
For the purpose of this Section, the DOH, in coordination with other
government agencies, shall formulate guidelines and standards for the
collection, treatment and disposal of sewage including guidelines for the
establishment and operation of centralized sewage treatment system. 103
-l\
DECISION 33 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
While the reason for the amendment was not explicitly reflected in the
Senate deliberations, it can be assumed that our lawmakers intended
immediate enforcement and implementation of the law in reducing the
compliance period from seven (7) years to five (5) years. Also with the
amendment, the actors are now the LGUs and the water agency vested to
provide water supply and sewerage facilities and/or concessionaires in Metro
Manila and other HUCs. The Conference Committee Report on SB No. 2115
and HB No. 5398, thereafter, recommended for approval the current Section
8 of the Clean Water Act with the obligation thereunder now resting alone on
MWSS and its concessionaires. 105
It is also noteworthy that the repeated use of the imperative word shall
in the provision has the invariable significance to impose the enforcement of
an obligation, especially where public interest is involved. 106 As worded in all
the amendments, the obligation in Section 8 is commanding in nature, and it
was not conditioned on the performance of the act under Section 7 or any other
act. Read with the shortened compliance period, the phraseology here plainly
104
Senate Record, Vol. I, No. 6, August 6, 2003, pp. 211-212.
105
Record of the Senate, Vol. III, No. 61, Full Text of Conference Case Report on SB No. 2115 and HB No.
5398, p. 945.
106
Pentagon International Shipping Services, Inc. v. Madrio G.R. No. 169158, July 1, 2015.
DECISION 34 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
-1
DECISION 35 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
permits or refuse issuance ofECC and the DOH the Environmental Sanitation
Clearance, for establishments that fail to connect their sewage lines to
available sewerage system as required; 112 the water supply utility provider
shall be responsible for the sewerage facilities and the main lines pursuant to
pertinent laws; 113 and that in the absence of constituted and operational water
districts and water corporations , the concerned LGU shall employ the septage
management system and other sanitation programs. 114
In all, nothing in Sections 7 and 8 of the Clean Water Act or its IRR115
states or, at the very least, implies that the former is a condition precedent of
the latter. From the foregoing, it is apparent that the obligation imposed on
petitioners by Section 8, as implemented by Rule 8 of DAO No. 05-10, to
connect the existing sewerage lines is mandatory and unconditional. After
the expiration of the five-year compliance period, the obligatory force of
Section 8 becomes immediate and can be enforced against petitioners
without subordination to the happening of a future and uncertain event.
Thus, the terms of Section 8 are absolute. Ripe for this Court's
determination is the fact of compliance or lack thereof by the concessionaires
with Section 8 of the Clean Water Act and its correlative implications.
112
/d. Sec. 8.5.
113
Id. Sec. 8.6.
114
Id. Sec 8.7.
115
RULE 7. National Sewerage and Septage Management Program (NSSMP). -The DPWH shall, within twelve (12)
months from the effectivity of the [CLEAN WATER ACT], prepare a National Sewerage and Septage Management
Program. The NSSMP shall be a framework plan which will be formulated to address various national issues on sanitation
and treatment and disposal of wastewater, focusing on, among others, objectives, strategies, targets, institutional
mechanism, financing mechanism, technology implementation, programming, monitoring and evaluation and other key
national concerns. The program shall also include guidelines on sludge management for companies engaged in desludging
operations.
7.1 Involvement of other Agencies.
7.1.l Role of the DENR. The Department shall coordinate with DPWH and LGUs in complying with Sec. 7 of the
[CLEAN WATER ACT], contributing specific environmental criteria and data for the prioritization of sanitation,
sewerage, septage management and combination of different systems and projects. It shall likewise present to LGUs,
water concessionaires, water districts and other water utilities sustainable options such as community-based natural
treatment systems, ecological sanitation concepts, water recycling and conservation systems and other low-cost
innovative means to manage sewage and septage as a complement to other sewerage and sanitation programs.
7.1.2 Roles and responsibilities of other agencies. The DOH shall provide specific health criteria and data; the
MWSS and LWUA shall contribute inputs relative to the responsibilities of concessionaires and water districts in
sewerage, septage and sanitation management; the IEC program shall be developed through the assistance of the Dep.
Ed, CHED and PIA. The League of Municipalities/Cities/Provinces shall contribute specific inputs reflecting the
interests of LGUs. The LWUA and water districts may also submit to DPWH a listing of sewerage, septage and
combined sewerage-septage projects for LGUs.
7.2 Role of LGUs. Each LGU, through the enactment of an ordinance, shall appropriate the necessary land
including the required rights-of-way/road access to the land for the construction of the sewage and/or septage treatment
facilities in accordance with the Local Government Code. It may enact ordinances adjusting local property taxes or
imposing a service fee system to meet necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of sewerage treatment or
scptage management facility servicing their area of jurisdiction. The LGUs shall submit to DPWH a priority listing of
their projects based on realistic assessment of resources, including proposals for counterpart contributions. Such
counterpart proposals shall be considered by the DPWH in prioritizing projects for implementation.
7.3 Exemptions from wastewater charges and liabilities. LGUs undertaking or about to undertake pilot ecological
sanitation (ECOSAN) technologies and other sanitation technologies shall be exempt from wastewater charges or other
liabilities for seven years from effectivity of the Act and shall be assisted by DENR in securing any necessary
permits. Provided, that effluents from such pilot-testing activities shall meet effluent standards.
7.4 Provision of Lands and of Rights-of-Way by LG Us. Each LGU, through the enactment of an ordinance, shall
appropriate the necessary land including the required rights-of-way/road access to the land for the construction of the
sewage and/or septage treatment facilities in accordance with the Local Government Code.
7.5 Funding for the Operation and Maintenance of Sewerage Treatment and Septage FacUities. Each LGU may
enact ordinances adjusting local property taxes or imposing a service fee system to meet necessary expenses for the
operation and maintenance of sewerage treatment or septage management facility servicing their area of jurisdiction.
DECISION 36 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
A. Maynilad's Compliance
Maynilad (West Zone Concession Area) Manila Water (East Zone Concession Area)
Caloocan NCR RIZAL
Valenzuela
Makati Angono
Navotas
Mandaluyong Antipolo
Malahan
Manila (part) Baras
Quezon City (part)
Marikina Binangonan
Manila (part)
Parailaque (part) Cainta
Makati (part)
Pasig Cardona
Pasay
Pateros Jalajala
Muntinlupa
Quezon City (part) Morong
Parai'iaque
San Juan Pililla
Las Pii'ias
Taguig Rodriguez
Bacoor, Cavite
San Mateo
Imus, Cavite
Tanay
Kawit, Cavitc
Taytay
Rosario, Cavite
Teresa
Noveleta, Cavite
· · - Cavite_City ... _ . ..
Rollo (G.R. No. 206823), pp. 1357 rind 1555.
117
Compliance of Manila Water, Id. at 1415.
-~
DECISION 37 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
xxxx
xxxx
20. With regard to compliance with Section 8.3 of the IRR, the DPWH
has not yet issued a compliance plan for the mandatory connection of
identified establishments and households to the existing sewerage systems.
xxxx
xxxx
24. As of30 April 2017, fifteen (15) STPs, one (1) SSpTP and one (1)
SpTP with a combined sewage treatment capacity of 72,917 cubic meters
per day ("CMD") and combined septage treatment of 740 CMD have been
completed by Maynilad.
xxxx
-~
DECISION 38 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
its kind in the Philippines) and the LKK STP (the second largest
sewerage facility in the Philippines), have combined capacity of 309,544
cubic meters of wastewater per day with a capacity to take on more load,
if necessary. In addition, Manila Water also complements its sewage
collection, treatment and disposal services by providing sanitation
services to regularly clean-up septic tanks throughout the East Zone
thereby, making good on its commitment to protect the environment.
Indeed, Manila Water has taken to heart its frontline role in prevention,
control, and abatement of pollution of water resources by providing a
continuously expanding and improving scope of sewage collection,
treatment and disposal services amidst its pursuit of economic growth.
xxxx
-\
DECISION 39 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
First. Even without delving into the obligatory force of Section 8 of the
Clean Water Act, the Agreements already clearly enjoin full compliance with
Philippine laws, to wit:
The Concessionaire shall comply with all Philippine laws, statutes, rules
Regulations, orders and directives of any governmental authority that
may affect the Concession from time to time.
xxxx
(iii) at all times comply with all material laws, statutes, rules, regulations,
orders and directives of any governmental authority having jurisdiction
over the Concessionaire or its businesses, except in cases where the
application thereof is being contested in good faith or is the subject of an appeal
or other legal challenge. 119
Second. Even before the inception of the Clean Water Act, the Court,
in Province ofRizal v. Executive Secretary, 120 already had occasion to declare
the self-proving fact that "sources of water should always be protected."
In Province of Rizal, the Court was confronted with the Order of then
President Joseph Estrada to reopen the San Mateo dumpsite on January 11,
2001 despite the MOA executed between the petitioner therein Province of
Rizal with the MMDA for the permanent closure of the dumpsite by
December 31, 2000. The Court considered various laws cited by respondents
therein and upheld the then newly enacted Solid Waste Management Act of
2000 and the power of the LGUs to promote the general welfare. This Court
declared in that decision that waste disposal is regulated by the Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. The said law was enacted pursuant to
the declared policy of the state "to adopt a systematic, comprehensive and
119
Concession Agreement with Manila Water. http:ro.mwss.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CA-
mwcl.pdf (last visited April 2, 2019.)
120
513 Phil. 557 (2005).
_j
DECISION 40 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
121
Id. at 593.
122
Id. at 594.
123
Id. at 581, citing Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., 296 Phil. 694 (1993).
124
Provided in Section 5 on Service Obligations of the Concession Agreements; supra note 119.
-1
DECISION 41 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
Indeed, petitioners have fully and faithfully complied with the proviso
in Section 8, only in the aspect that they are authorized under the Service
Obligations under the Agreements to impose sewerage services charges and
fees for the connection of the existing sewage line to the available sewerage
system. 126 They seem to forget, however, that receipt of these fees entailed the
legal duty of actually and completely installing the already long-delayed
sewerage connections.
--l
DECISION 42 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
of the septage and sewerage connections have already been lagging for fifteen
years past the effectivity of the Clean Water Act. Had petitioners submitted to
the word of the law, this extension would not have been required, since the
sewerage and septage connection projects for which the extension is sought
could have been completed by now. There is no one else to blame but
petitioners' neglect. The public has already suffered because of this delay, and
no further extensions could possibly be accommodated without inflicting
additional disadvantage to the already aggrieved.
More importantly, the Congress has already imposed the deadline for
the compliance by petitioners for the construction of these sewerage
connections under the Clean Water Act. If petitioners intended an extension,
they should have sought the enactment of an amending law to the Clean Water
Act. Petitioners simply cannot alter the law and court instruction by mere
stipulation in their private contract. Laws are repealed only by subsequent
ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or
custom, or practice to.the contrary. 128
Thus being stated, this Court, also laboring under the Public Trust
Doctrine, construes the MOA between MWSS and Maynilad and the MOA
between MWSS and Manila Water as a complicit acknowledgment of their
obstinate defiance of their mandate under the Clean Water Act. Agreeing
among themselves for a 15-year extension will not cancel their long-running
liability under Section 8 of the Clean Water Act, in relation to Section 28
under the same law. A private contract cannot promote business convenience
to the unwarranted disadvantage of public welfare and trust.
With all said, petitioners' assertion that the Agreements take primacy
over a special law such as the Clean Water Act is decimated. It is thus
established that Section 8 of the Clean Water Act demands unconditional
compliance, and petitioners were utterly remiss in that duty.
Petitioners are unrelenting and now contend that this very same Court
effectively extended the five-year compliance period for connection of the
sewage line to the available sewerage system because of our ruling in MMDA
v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay. 129
MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay 130 declared the role and
responsibility of the MWSS, among other government agencies, in the long-
128
Article 7, Civil Code of the Philippines.
129
Supra note 17.
uo Id.
_l
DECISION 43 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
standing and increasingly dire sanitary conditions of Manila Bay. In the said
case, the Court ruled, inter alia, that "[a]s mandated by Sec. 8 ofRA 9275, the
MWSS is directed to provide, install, operate, and maintain the necessary
adequate waste water treatment facilities in Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite
where nyeded at the earliest possible time," and that it shall "submit to the
Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities undertaken x:xx".
The Court in MMDA was simply exercising its constitutional power and
duty to interpret the law and resolve an actual case or controversy. 131 While
judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law or the Constitution form
part of the legal system of the Philippines, 132 the Court does not dabble in
judicial legislation 133 and is without power to amend or repeal Section 8 of the
Clean Water Act.
Petitioners insist that the appellate courts erred in affirming the Orders
of the SENR as these were not based on substantial evidence. We, however,
do not find reason to deviate from the findings of the administrative agencies,
as affirmed by the appellate courts:
131
See Section 1, Article VlII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
132
Section 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
133
See Section l, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
SECTION 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate
and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.
-1
DECISION 44 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
These were also given full credence by the PAB and the SENR. We
quote with approval apportion of the SENR's pronouncement in its Order
dated October 7, 2009:
It should further be noted that the five (5)-year period was made to
provide sufficient time to comply with the interconnection of all water
supply and sewerage facilities. The continued failure of providing a
centralized sewerage system in compliance with the said law means that
several sewage [lines continue] to dump and release untreated sewerage
within their vicinities - resulting in unmitigated environmental pollution x
X X.134
This Court, on more than one occasion, has ruled that by reason of their
special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction,
administrative agencies, like respondents P AB and the Regional Offices of the
EMB, whose judgment the SENR based its Orders on, are in a better position
to pass judgment, and their findings of fact are generally accorded great
respect, if not finality, by the courts. Such findings ought to be respected as
long as they are supported by substantial evidence. It is not the task of the
appellate court nor of this Court to once again weigh the evidence submitted
before and passed upon by the administrative body and to substitute its own
judgment regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. 136
134
Rollo (G.R. No. 207969), pp. 50-51.
135
Rollo (G.R. No. 206823), pp. 118-119.
136
Summit One Condominium Corporation v. PAB, G.R. No. 215029, July 5, 2017.
-I\
DECISION 45 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
We, however, find the computations on the fine imposed by the court
and quasi-tribunals a quo lacking. Section 28 of the Clean Water Act bears
another recital of its relevant parts:
J\
DECISION 46 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
provided under Section 28 until petitioners shall have fully complied with
Section 8 of the Clean Water Act. The fines shall likewise earn legal interest
of six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Decision until full
satisfaction thereof. 138
This instruction further enjoins not only petitioners herein, but all water
supply and sewerage facilities and/or concessionaires in Metro Manila and
other highly urbanized cities as defined in Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local
Government Code, in the strict compliance with Section 8 of Republic Act
No. 9275 or the Philippine Clean Water Act.
118
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).
-¼
.
DECISION 47 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
~·r~. No part
ANTONIO T. CARPIO DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
<;u~~
A..JL 1/...uU
ESTELAM.v~RLASBERNABE
Associate Justice Associate Justice
.
FRANCISNH. 5.AhllELEZA NS. CAGUIOA
Associate Justice
DECISION 48 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
A
No part
ANDRES B. REYES, JR. A G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice ~eJustice
On leave
JOSE B. REYES, JR. . CARANo--Jii6'
Associate Justice Associate Justice
AMY ~~A
Associate Justice
VIER HEN , LB. INTING
Associate Justice
DECISION 49 G.R. Nos. 202897, 206823 & 207969
CERTIFICATION .
~ j
. i-~ 5·,.. l •.
'-,;\